Judge Wants to Pause NJ Transgender Discrimination Case Until SCOTUS Rules
The Third Circuit has yet to issue a ruling on whether Title VII protects transgender people, an issue before the Supreme Court this term.
October 01, 2019 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge hearing a hostile work environment suit by a transgender woman wants to stay the litigation until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on whether transgender people are a protected class under Title VII.
U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman issued an order to show cause Monday as to why a ruling in the underlying Title VII lawsuit should not be stayed until the Supreme Court rules in this term's landmark transgender-rights case. Hillman issued the order in a suit by Charlize Cunningham, who claims she endured a hostile work environment related to her transgender status while working for Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp.
Hillman's order proposes a stay of Cunningham's Title VII claim pending a Supreme Court ruling in R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC, the case of a biologically male Michigan funeral director who was fired after informing colleagues she intended to transition to female and change her name from Anthony Stephens to Aimee Stephens. The justices are slated to hear arguments Oct. 8.
A federal judge in Detroit ruled in favor of the funeral home but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the funeral home discriminated against Stephens on the basis of gender, in violation of Title VII.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on whether transgender people are a protected class under Title VII, Hillman said. He gave both sides 14 days to submit briefs of up to five pages on whether a ruling in the case should be stayed pending the Supreme Court case.
Burlington Coat Factory's lawyer, in a motion to dismiss, asked the court to follow the lead of the Seventh, Eighth and Tenth circuits, which have held that transgender people are not a protected class under Title VII. Meanwhile, Cunningham's lawyer asked the court to follow the recent position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is that discrimination based on transgender status is a violation of Title VII. Cunningham's lawyer also points to the holdings of the Sixth and Eleventh circuits, which have ruled that transgender people belong to a protected class under Title VII.
David Koller of Koller Law in Philadelphia, who represents Cunningham, said in an email, "We are really pleased that the court has allowed Charlize's claims to survive the initial attempt at dismissal by the defendant. I am really happy for Charlize. On a professional level, and as a human being, I feel strongly that transgendered individuals should be afforded these rights under the law."
Koller said he and his client had not had a chance to discuss whether they would rather proceed with the case now or wait for a Supreme Court ruling. But either way, Koller said, "we will definitely continue to be guided by a strong desire and motivation at justice for Charlize and all transgendered individuals."
Michael O'Mara of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in Philadelphia, who represents Burlington Coat Factory, did not respond to requests for comment about the ruling.
Cunningham was hired as a sales associate at a Burlington store in 2011. She soon became subject to disparaging comments and jokes about her transgender status. Cunningham was in a car accident that left her with a lymph nodes infection in 2013. Due to an undisclosed, underlying disability, the infection did not heal and Cunningham missed time from work.
When she advised the human resources department of her underlying disability and her need to attend ongoing medical appointments, she was told the company would reevaluate her employment if she had any more medical problems, the suit claims. Cunningham applied for accommodation under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was initially approved but later revoked. She was then terminated in March 2014 for absenteeism and tardiness. Cunningham filed a complaint with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter in March 2018.
Hillman granted Burlington's motion to dismiss Cunningham's retaliation and failure-to-promote claims because she failed to raise those claims in administrative charges she filed with the EEOC. Hillman also granted Cunningham permission to file an amended complaint that provides more information about her disability. But he declined to grant Burlington's motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGibbons Attorneys File WARN Violations Against Christmas Tree Shops Owners for Short Layoff Notices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madicon, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250